[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

IMAX theaters in several Southern cities have decided not to show a film on volcanoes out of concern that its references to evolution might offend those with fundamental religious beliefs.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movi....ap/index.html

[JohnSmithXTREME]

They have cinemas in the south?

[budster101]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
IMAX theaters in several Southern cities have decided not to show a film on volcanoes out of concern that its references to evolution might offend those with fundamental religious beliefs.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movi....ap/index.html

So?

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally posted by budster101:
So?

You only say that because you agree. How about non-close minded people who would like to watch the movie. Don't like it? Don't watch it.

[budster101]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
You only say that because you agree. How about non-close minded people who would like to watch the movie. Don't like it? Don't watch it.

It was for economic reasons they decided not to show it.

"We've got to pick a film that's going to sell in our area. If it's not going to sell, we're not going to take it," said Lisa Buzzelli, director of an IMAX theater in Charleston that is not showing the movie. "Many people here believe in creationism, not evolution."

The film, "Volcanoes of the Deep Sea," makes a connection between human DNA and microbes inside undersea volcanoes.

Buzzelli doesn't rule out showing the movie in the future."

Did you read the fcuking article? Or are you just trolling some more?

She even mentioned the possibility of showing it in the future...

[JohnSmithXTREME]

To be fair, Star Wars Person, the theatres don't want to show the film because they expect that it won't do well. They aren't actually censoring it; it's a business decision. If IMAX expects that their film may offend a significant part of their uneducated southern customers, then it is in their best interest not to show that film. They are in the business to make money, not to teach religious fundamentalists a bit of 6th grade science.

[JohnSmithXTREME]

DP

[Mithras]

I would not be surprised if creationist activism groups work to pack the review audiences, writing disagreeable responses to the films so as to prevent their coming. Since G-d forbid people should get a scientific education in their town.

[ironknee]

oy vey

don't let anything that SHOWS that what u belive is too narrow minded...and btw don't show it to others as well...

as i said in another post, christians want to make the 21st century a second age of christians...the first age is what we call the DARK AGES

dumb dumb dumb

[entrox]

What's sadder? Theatre owners thinking that showing science films is not interesting to the general public because of religious beliefs or the fact that they're probably right?

[andi*pandi]

I guess the south will continue to get it's science from... from... from where?

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally posted by andi*pandi:
I guess the south will continue to get it's science from... from... from where?

baby jesus and the fear book.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
You only say that because you agree. How about non-close minded people who would like to watch the movie. Don't like it? Don't watch it.

They need to move then. Really. This isn't the people who live there or hold these beliefs fault. iMax saw it wouldn't make much money so a lot of cinemas didn't get it.

This happens with A LOT of movies. And most of the time it's not even about religion.

I would say you were being just as closed minded. Esp with asinine Jrhigh-ish comments like

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
baby jesus and the fear book.

In other words, grow up.

Originally posted by entrox:
What's sadder? Theatre owners thinking that showing science films is not interesting to the general public because of religious beliefs or the fact that they're probably right?

Not just science films, and not just because of religious beliefs.


You know there are people who aren't religious that think certain theories have too many holes in it as well.

People are allowed to think differently than you.

Talk about being open minded. For some reason, some people think being open minded means everyone thinks alike, and just like them.

[badidea]

Shouldn't they have banned "Blue planet" and the other space movies too then? Those movies could create the false impression that the world goes around the sun and that it isn't flat...

[Eug Wanker]

It's obviously BOTH a business decision and a political decision.

It may not do all that well, but there's a lot of crap that won't do well that IMAX theatres do in fact show. They just don't want to deal with the potential political fallout.

That said, it's lame that there would be such potential for political fallout there for something like this. I'm just glad I don't live there.

[hart]

I read about this in the New York Times a couple of days ago. In that article it said that the IMAX theaters in SCIENCE MUSEUMS were turning away movies that mentioned evolution. The local mall cinema, OK, but a science museum seems to have some obligation not to pander.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/19/national/19imax.html?

""Volcanoes," released in 2003 and sponsored in part by the National Science Foundation and Rutgers University, has been turned down at about a dozen science centers, mostly in the South, said Dr. Richard Lutz, the Rutgers oceanographer who was chief scientist for the film. He said theater officials rejected the film because of its brief references to evolution, in particular to the possibility that life on Earth originated at the undersea vents."

"Carol Murray, director of marketing for the Fort Worth Museum of Science and History, said the museum decided not to offer the movie after showing it to a sample audience, a practice often followed by managers of Imax theaters. Ms. Murray said 137 people participated in the survey, and while some thought it was well done, "some people said it was blasphemous."

[SimeyTheLimey]

There is no obligation to show anything. Museums are not temples of secularism where the visitors must be browbeaten. Museums exist to entertain as well as to inform, and they won't do either if they offend people. Nor will they make ends meet if they dogmatically play movies to half empty theaters.

My understanding is that IMAX movies are rather expensive to run, and are basically a gimmick offered for entertainment value. If you go to even a non-profit museum like the Smithsonian, it is pretty obvious that the movies that pack the houses are the ones with the pretty pictures, and those are the ones the theaters play and play and play. The last time I checked, the Air and Space in DC was still showing "To Fly" which I first saw there back in 1982.

I suspect that Mel Gibson's movie the Passion of the Christ probably played to fewer houses per capita in Manhattan than in the South and it probably didn't run as long. Would that mean that theaters in Manhattan censored The Passion, or does it just mean that entertainment businesses play to their audience, whether secular or otherwise?

You guys really need to learn to accept diversity.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You guys really need to learn to accept diversity.

How ironic, considering this is a thread where a scientific film is being censored partially because of religious beliefs.

I suspect that Mel Gibson's movie the Passion of the Christ probably played to fewer houses per capita in Manhattan than in the South and it probably didn't run as long. Would that mean that theaters in Manhattan censored The Passion, or does it just mean that entertainment businesses play to their audience, whether secular or otherwise?

Of course, The Passion of the Christ played in all states, IIRC. Those who didn't want to see it, simply didn't go to see it. Seems pretty simple to me.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
How ironic, considering this is a thread where a scientific film is being censored partially because of religious beliefs.

No, it's not being shown for economic reasons. A bunch of intolerant people who don't appreciate diversity are confusing that with censorship.

Diversity does not mean "everyone think in lockstep."

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, it's not being shown for economic reasons. A bunch of intolerant people who don't appreciate diversity are confusing that with censorship.

Ms. Murray said 137 people participated in the survey, and while some thought it was well done, "some people said it was blasphemous."

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Ms. Murray said 137 people participated in the survey, and while some thought it was well done, "some people said it was blasphemous."

And therefore they didn't like it. And therefore the theaters adjusted their marketing of a commercial product to maximise sales.

It's not censorship.

I'm not religious myself, but I do not share your intolerance of religion, and bigotry against the religious. Learn to accept difference.

[Mithras]

As hart said, these are theaters at freaking science centers. If they don't have a duty to offer educational, entertaining films to the public, then who does?

Sorry, but a public that believes in creationism isn't a religious public to be respected in their belief, it's a misinformed public that should be educated. They can keep whatever religious beliefs they want, fine by me, but to say that a science center has no duty to educate the public about science is laughable.

Also, consider my point above that creationist activists may be "spiking" these preview showings.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
And therefore they didn't like it. And therefore the theaters adjusted their marketing of a commercial product to maximise sales.

As I already said earlier, the reasons behind it are BOTH monetary and political. It's pretty obvious.

It's not censorship.

Censor: to examine (as a publication or film) in order to suppress or delete any contents considered objectionable

Obviously, there are different levels of censorship, but this is one of them.

I'm not religious myself, but I do not share your intolerance of religion, and bigotry against the religious. Learn to accept difference.

Hmmm... You seem to have a lot of intolerance of MacNNers who don't share your point of view.

Like I said before, those who don't wish to see it, simply can choose not to see it. OTOH, if it's not played at all, those who do wish to see it, cannot see it.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Sorry, but a public that believes in creationism isn't a religious public to be respected in their belief, it's a misinformed public that should be educated. They can keep whatever religious beliefs they want, fine by me, but to say that a science center has no duty to educate the public about science is laughable.

This is simply intolerance.

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Hmmm... You seem to have a lot of intolerance of MacNNers who don't share your point of view.

As the slogan goes, I am intolerant of intolerance.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
As the slogan goes, I am intolerant of intolerance.

The sad part is you seemed to be blinded by your own made up stereotypes of others. Refusing to accept censorship is obviously quite different from being bigoted against the religious.

For example, most non-religious people did not object that the Passion of the Christ was shown in their neighbourhoods. I certainly didn't. In fact, although I didn't see the movie in the theatres (no time), I would like to see it eventually. Indeed, if the movie theatres had refused to show it here and the Christian groups complained, I would have been on their side. The movie deserved to be aired, and it did.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
The sad part is you seemed to be blinded by your own made up stereotypes of others. Refusing to accept censorship is obviously quite different from being bigoted against the religious.

For example, most non-religious couldn't care less that the Passion of the Christ was shown in their neighbourhoods. I certainly didn't. In fact, although I didn't see the movie in the theatres (no time), I would like to see it eventually.

Obviously, you don't get it. Businesses react to markets of paying customers. What they sell is not what they "should" sell -- it is what people want to buy.

Movies are businesses. They react to what the public wants to buy and see. When a movie house decides that there aren't enough people in their area who want to see something, they put something else on that the public does want to see.

Not all audiences are the same in all areas. They vary considerably. Down the road from me is an art house theater that does well showing foreign movies with subtitles. They would go broke selling the same thing in another part of the country, because there wouldn't be enough people to buy tickets to cover their overhead.

Likewise, other parts of the country have businesses that cater to their interests. For example, a Christian bookstore would do better in an area with a lot of people who want to buy Christian books. That might not be on the Upper West Side. But nobody would say that the Upper West Side is censoring Christian book stores. The absence is simply reacing to the market.

This is an issue of free will, and public tastes. It has nothing to do with censorship. Nobody is forcing these museum theaters not to show the movies. They made a commercial decision based on their understanding of their audience. IMAX theaters in museums have to pay the bills too -- just like the art theater example.

To reiterate: it is not censorship, because it is a free choice. Museums react to the market just like businesses do. Exhibits that don't interest people are worthless, don't sell tickets, and don't allow the museum to pay the bills and stay open.

On the other hand, you want to force people to see something that is offensive to them, and which they do not want to see, and which the museum management as freely decided would be a bad decision for the museum. And why? Because you are intolerant of their beliefs and feel like reeducating them.

This is simply secular zealotry. You criticize the religious, and yet your own behavior is identical to your worst stereotype of a religious zealot.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
This is simply secular zealotry. You criticize the religious, and yet your own behavior is identical to your worst stereotype of a religious zealot.

Stop making things up. I criticized the lame museum for censorship. Your own bigotry is getting the best of you again.

[budster101]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Stop making things up. I criticized the lame museum for censorship. Your own bigotry is getting the best of you again.

I suggest you don't go there then.
Acusing Simey of bigotry is idiotic and tantamount to an attempt to silence his views on the issues by way of character assasination.

[asd]

I don't think the point here is whether IMAX should or should not show the movie. They can do what they want. If they don't think people will pay money to see it, why should they show it and lose money?

The issue to me is how Christian our society is becoming. It seems to me that in the last 10 - 15 yrs, America has become much more Christian-based, especially since the Republicans have come into power.

I saw a poll the other day that something like 50% of Americans beleave in the literal account of the Bible (God created Adam and Eve, etc.) This is scarry to me.

[kemuri]

This from the country that berates some Muslim nations for lack of "freedoms" because they won't show that sh!t heap film, "The Passion of Christ".

In most nations, even a film they know won't do well will still be shown. Why? Because some people inevitably do turn up to see it.

US of A - spreading hypocrisy across the world.

[kemuri]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Obviously, you don't get it. Businesses react to markets of paying customers. What they sell is not what they "should" sell -- it is what people want to buy.

Talk sh!t, pal. Many cinemas across many countries will show movies that they know draw a small crowd. It's called specialist films, Most cities have them. From art house pictures, to IMAX ones.

Cinemas will show films they now aren't big pullers.

Snipped the rest of the cr@p.

[kemuri]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

This is an issue of free will, and public tastes. It has nothing to do with censorship. Nobody is forcing these museum theaters not to show the movies. They made a commercial decision based on their understanding of their audience. IMAX theaters in museums have to pay the bills too -- just like the art theater example.

Not exactly true. They received many petitions in opposition to putting the movie on, and combined with a niche film showing, they decided to pull it,.

If they had received little opposition to it, it would have shown.

What you fail to understand, is that the pressure from various bodies, can make or break the showing of such a film.

So, no, it wasn't just their decision to pull it due to perceived poor turnouts, there was pressure added.

[budster101]

Originally posted by kemuri:
This from the country that berates some Muslim nations for lack of "freedoms" because they won't show that sh!t heap film, "The Passion of Christ".

In most nations, even a film they know won't do well will still be shown. Why? Because some people inevitably do turn up to see it.

US of A - spreading hypocrisy across the world.

Many theaters banned "The Passion of The Christ"...

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by budster101:
Acusing Eug of zealotry is idiotic and tantamount to an attempt to silence his views on the issues by way of character assasination.

Fixed�

[kemuri]

Originally posted by budster101:
Many theaters banned "The Passion of The Christ"...

Exactly, and a few Gov. people decided to speak out against foreign nations banning it, rather than focusing on their home-ground.

Take care of your own first, then talk about others later.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by kemuri:
Talk sh!t, pal. Many cinemas across many countries will show movies that they know draw a small crowd. It's called specialist films, Most cities have them. From art house pictures, to IMAX ones.

Cinemas will show films they now aren't big pullers.

Snipped the rest of the cr@p.

Those theaters only stay in existance if they accurately guage their market. Not all markets are mass markets. Lots of businesses do very well selling to niche markets. The examples I used -- the art house theater near the FBI building in DC, and the Christian bookstores in the south are both businesses that cater to niche markets. Nothing wrong with that.

The issue is that if you picked up the art house theater and put it where the Christian bookstore is, the art house theater (which does well in DC) would go bankrupt. And the Christian bookstore which likewise does well in the south would probably go bankrupt on F Street. The niche markets exist, but the businesses that service those niche markets where the niche exists, not where someone somewhere else says it ought to exist.

One of the miracles of Capitalism is that managers of businesses know their market better than people hundreds or thousands of miles away. The managers of these IMAX theaters know their market. If they don't, they won't be in business long.

[kemuri]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Fixed�

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by budster101:
Many theaters banned "The Passion of The Christ"...

No, there is a distiction. They didn't ban the Passion, they declined to show it. It's different.

Banning would be if the government stepped in and forbade people from showing the movie. No business should be forced to show a movie against their wishes.

[kemuri]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Those theaters only stay in existance if they accurately guage their market. Not all markets are mass markets. Lots of businesses do very well selling to niche markets. The examples I used -- the art house theater near the FBI building in DC, and the Christian bookstores in the south are both businesses that cater to niche markets. Nothing wrong with that.

You talk from that of which you know not. Leave it to those who know, thank you.

I know this, because despite me being a lawyer, the rest of my family are in the film business. From studios, to cinemas and distributors, I was raised in that atmosphere, and have worked in it.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by kemuri:
You talk from that of which you know not. Leave it to those who know, thank you.

Exactly how do movie theaters stay in business without an audience? Are these businesses magically exempt from the normal need to pay for their running expenses?

[kemuri]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:


Exactly how do movie theaters stay in business without an audience?

Are you suggesting that that they show just the one movie? That they rely on the income from that one movie?

I'm sorry, but you still don't grasp the mechanics of how this works.

[budster101]

Originally posted by kemuri:
Are you suggesting that that they show just the one movie? That they rely on the income from that one movie?

I'm sorry, but you still don't grasp the mechanics of how this works.

Maybe you don't understand how it works.

"The first Imax theaters were built in museums in the 1970s and 1980s, and the films typically had science or nature themes. Those movies don't draw as well in newer commercial Imax theaters, so Imax Corp. has been trying to develop more commercial fare for those theaters. The company said it now has more than 200 "traditional" films available for its theaters." (Source on bottom of page)

They have to select their movies and consider the audience according to the demographics. It's called marketing and maximizing the profit / cost ratio. How much would it cost them to have empty seated theaters for that showing period, compared to consessions and ticket sales? If it is showing a diminishing returns in the model, then they make the decision to not show that particular movie in that demographic. It's called business, and money, not pollitics drive business. In this demographic, the thing setting off the business decision is the demographic's religous beliefs. In other areas it would be their population of children under a certain age, so they may bump a movie that is more cartoon-like... or a movie like SPIDERMAN made into the IMAX format.

"McDonald said traffic at the Queensgate theater fell 40 percent following the civil unrest in April 2001, and has recovered only about 7 percentage points of that."

Many things affect a theater's ability to make money...

They are well within their rights to show or not show a movie, and yes, if you want to call it censorship, then I'll just bring up the movie "The Passion of the Christ", which would not have lost any theater any money. It was always sold out, in all markets... yet some theaters, CENSORED the showing. Hey, it's their own money their losing, no bother to me.

IMAX Theater closes:

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/200...oc_imax14.html

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by kemuri:
Are you suggesting that that they show just the one movie? That they rely on the income from that one movie?

I'm sorry, but you still don't grasp the mechanics of how this works.

One movie or ten, they still have to cover their expenses, that means selling enough tickets. If they fail to do so, they lose money and go broke. It happens all the time.

A smart business maximizes profit. You don't go out of your way to turn the audience away. If you are indeed a lawyer, I hope you don't advise your clients to mismanage their businesses that way.

The managers know their market better than you or I could know it. If they have decided that they can best maximise their profits by selling another product that their audience likes better, then that is their choice.

[edit: Budster101 explained it better]

[kemuri]

Originally posted by budster101:
Maybe you don't understand how it works.
l[/url]

Um, no, you don't understand. The discussion had gone on to cinemas in general, not just IMAX. You'd see that by my reply.

Thanks for your reply, but it is redundant to what I was saying.

Originally posted by Zimphire:

You know there are people who aren't religious that think certain theories have too many holes in it as well.

And there are also people who believe, because they admit their beliefs are based faith and not scientific evidence, that these beliefs are more sound than a scientific theory that has a couple of holes in it, just because that theory is based scientific evidence. Probably because blind faith requires much less thinking than critically examining a scientific theory that it not 100% proven.

[kemuri]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
One movie or ten, they still have to cover their expenses, that means selling enough tickets. If they fail to do so, they lose money and go broke. It happens all the time.

Budster was talking about IMAX theaters, but our discussion was veering into general cinema chains.

Now, you still don't understand how cinemas work, I'm not talking about any business, but the film business today.

Simply put, today's cinemas no longer just show major releases, they cater for what previously were the domain of the art-house cinema.l In doing so, they know they will attract smaller crowds, sometimes none at all, but they will put them on knowing this. This, in turn, will draw some people who would perviously not have come into a larger cinema.

Also, cinemas know that even nominally large movies will sometimes not draw large crowds, but they still show them. This isn't even talking about newer trends such as specialized evenings, where Indian, Korean, and other foreign films are shown. Some evenings flop, some don't, but they are a common trend now.

So, in all of this, cinemas do show movies in which they know might attract less crowds than usual, and sometimes none at all.

Im not even discussing the deals and agreements between distributors and cinemas, and what they entail for cinema groups.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by kemuri:
Budster was talking about IMAX theaters, but our discussion was veering into general cinema chains.

You might have thought so, but I don't.

These IMAX theaters located in museums are simply small movie theaters that cater to a niche market. They have expenses, and they have seats to fill. The managers are qualified to decide for themselves how best to make their business model work.

My point was simply that markets vary from place to place, and any business has to take account of their customer base. The business decision to sell a product for which there is demand rather than another for which there is less demand is not censorship.

[kemuri]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You might have thought so, but I don't.

I'm sorry, but you and I were talking about cinemas in general, and not IMAX. The rest of your post does not relate to the real world of modern-day cinema.


Now, as to IMAX, budster's reply is partly irrelevant to this situation. Sinice many here are failing to note that the withdrawal of this movie, was not just to do with perceived poor turnout, but also opposition from religious groups and individuals.

The news on the Net doesn't even mention this point, which I find strange.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

It funny that theatres still run quality films like Booty Call and Catwoman even though they think nobody will watch those.

[ironknee]

i don't go to museums to be entertained...i go to be inspired by science.

the theater is a plus, not the whole thing...but thinking about the movie they are protesting against was about valcanos right?

i suppose the part about millions of years bothered these peeps...

hmmm maybe if the movie said thousands of years going back 6,000 years only would make them happy///